What We Owe The Author: rethinking editorial peer review

Nursing Ethics 5 (5):451-458 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Editorial peer reviewers play an important role in shaping the direction of knowledge growth of their discipline. Recent concern over reports of peer review misconduct has led some to advocate the establishment of a code of ethics for peer reviewers. Such a code should include guidelines for the discipline and for society at large, but it should also contain guidelines for the authors whose manuscripts are reviewed. Peer reviewers have a special obligation to show beneficence and fairness or impartiality towards the authors for whom they review. The practical application of these two ethical concepts is discussed.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1177/096973309800500508

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,752

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

What We Owe the Author: rethinking editorial peer review.N. J. Crigger - 1998 - Nursing Ethics 5 (5):451-457.
Review of the Ethics and Etiquettes of Time Management of Manuscript Peer Review. [REVIEW]Malhar N. Kumar - 2014 - Journal of Academic Ethics 12 (4):333-346.
Peer review and publication: Lessons for lawyers.Susan Haack - 2007 - Stetson Law Review 36 (3).
On editorial practice and peer review.Eyal Shahar - 2007 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 13 (4):699-701.
How Editors Decide. Oral Communication in Journal Peer Review.Stefan Hirschauer - 2015 - Human Studies 38 (1):37-55.
Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry.David Shatz - 2004 - Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
The principles and practices of Peer review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review.Professor Robert H. Fletcher & Professor Suzanne W. Fletcher - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
Evidence for the effectiveness of Peer review.Robert H. Fletcher & Suzanne W. Fletcher - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
Learned Inquiry and the Net: The Role of Peer Review, Peer Commentary and Copyright.Stevan Harnad - unknown
Commensuration Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1272-1283,.
Peer-to-peer Review and the Future of Scholarly Authority.Kathleen Fitzpatrick - 2010 - Social Epistemology 24 (3):161-179.
Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.David B. Resnik & Susan A. Elmore - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):169-188.
Promoting F.A.I.T.h. In Peer review: Five core attributes of effective Peer review. [REVIEW]Leigh Turner - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
The Principles of Fair Allocation of Peer-Review: How Much Should a Researcher be Expected to Contribute?José G. B. Derraik - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (4):825-828.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-02-04

Downloads
15 (#943,292)

6 months
4 (#778,909)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

The ethics of peer review in bioethics.David Wendler & Franklin Miller - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (10):697-701.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references